[lit-ideas] Avicenna as pantheist (yet again!)
- From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:42:57 +0200
I'm ba-a-a-a-ck, just when you thought it was safe to read =
lit-ideas=20
agaIn. Sorry, but I haven't given up on this Avicenna-pantheism=20
business, which has stuck in my craw. Since, as a French civil servant,=20=
I have nothing else to do - we all get paid for doing nothing - I=20
thought I'd look into the matter further.
It last seemed that the accusation than Avicenna was a pantheist =
might=20
have originated with Averroes. But when I asked my colleague Maroun=20
Aouad, who has just discovered a new fragment of Avicenna at=20
Strasbourg, whether he could recall any such accusations in Averroes,=20
all I got was a look of quizzical bewilderment.
Then I got to thinking : perhaps we're barking up the wrong =
tree.=20
After all, for a strictly monotheistic religion like Medieval=20
Christianity or Islam, perhaps the accusation of "pantheist" might be=20
flung at anybody who seemed to compromise, overtly or by impliciation,=20=
the principles of the strictest monotheism. Unlike the accusation of=20
"pantheism", which is rare, the accusation of "associationism" is=20
frequent in Islam: it means that one "associates" some other principle=20=
with God, thereby compromising monotheism.
Now my Arabic isn't good enough for me to plunge directly into=20=
Averroes and see whether he accuses Avicennna of *shirk* or=20
associationism, but It wouldn't surprise me one bit. There is, however,=20=
a Medieval Latin tradition of Avicennianism, whose members included=20
Roger Bacon and Gundissalinus, who came in for heavy-duty criticism=20
from Orthodox Christains like William of Auvergne, named bishop of=20
Paris in 1228. We therefore might be able to learn, or at least guess=20
at, some of the grounds for calling Avicenna a pantheist from William's=20=
criticisms of Latin Avicennists.
William rejects Avicenna's idea of creation by emanation: as in=20=
Plotinus' system, he claims this idea makes god act by necessity and=20
eliminates His creative free will. He also has no patience with=20
Avicenna's view of a series of separate intelligences (Cherubim)=20
between God and nature; for William there are no divine intermediaries=20=
in the process of creation. Ditto for Avicenna's hierarchy of divine=20
Souls, which, out of love for and desire to imitate the divine=20
Intelligences, move the celestial spheres. But perhaps the most=20
horrible part of Avicenna's thought, for William, is his doctrine of=20
the active intelligence.
We will recall that in some of the more obscure passages of his =
De=20
anima, Aristotle had suggested that there was a difference bewteen the=20=
potential intellect, which contains forms or ideas in a mere potential=20=
state, and the active intellect, which is external to mankind (*nous=20
thurathen*). As developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, this becomes the=20=
doctrine of Illumniation, whereby in order for us to think, this=20
external intellect has to shine down upon our potential/passive=20
intellect and illuminate it, thereby setting "our" ideas into activity.=20=
Problem is: *whose* intellect is this, anyhow? Well, for Avicenna it=20
was the tenth in the series of divine Intelligences, identical with=20
Gabriel, the angel of the Annunciation or the Holy Spirit. The goal of=20=
Avicenna's mystical epistemology is that we should become "conjoined"=20
to this separate "active Intellect", which state is equivalent to=20
achieving immortality. Now this really gets William's goat: for him,=20
claiming that our (passive) intellect is illuminated by an angel i.e.=20
Gabriel) amounts to saying that an angel creates our soul, and=20
therefore ought ot be worshipped as our creator.
So there you have it. Avicenna's doctrines of emanation, =
angelology=20
(separate divine Intelligences and Souls, alternately emanating from=20
one another) and above all the doctrine of illumination by the Active=20
Intellect : these doctrines don't add up to anything that could=20
reasonably be called "pantheism". But neither is it a strictly=20
monotheistic doctrine, and it's not hard to see how Chritain and=20
Islamic fundamentalists, medieval and contemporary, could accuse=20
Avicenna, if not of pantheism, then at least of associationism.
Yet, to return to a question I asked some time ago, but which =
was=20
dismissed as irrevelant ; how widespread *was* the charge that Avicenna=20=
was a pantheist? It has been asserted that his being such was and is=20
"no secret", yet so far I have been able to find this accusation stated=20=
clearly in only *one* source. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Anybody who=20
can find another source for this charge will win a free cinnamon mocha=20=
at the new Starbuck's over by the Place de l'Op=E9ra.
Michael Chase=09
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76/
l'Annee Philologique
Villejuif-Paris
France=
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Avicenna as pantheist (yet again!)
